THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.414 of 2023

ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2022 in I.A.No.1077 of 2021 in O.S.No.141 of 2018 passed by the Court of XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed for amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 of CPC.

2. I.A.No.1077 of 2021 is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking for amendment of pleadings. The suit is filed for recovery of possession and mesne profits in respect of suit schedule property. On 01.12.2021, while preparing chief-afidavit of P.W.1, it came to light that there are certain typographical mistakes in the plaint and further, the petitioner committed serious mistake while giving instructions to his counsel at the time of drafting of the plaint and the proposed amendments are necessary for proper adjudication of the matter and it does not change the nature of the plaint.

3. The proposed amendments are to correct the ULC file number as G.O.Ms.No.G/747/2612/2008 in place of G.O.Ms.No.G1/747/2612/2008 in paragraph No.1 at page No.3, paragraph No.5 at page No.5, page Nos.7 to 9 and also in the plaint schedule property i.e., wherever it occurs in the plaint. The petitioners also sought for amending the ‘cause of action paragraph’ in the plaint and also the ‘limitation paragraph’ in the plaint by mentioning the date of accrual of cause of action as 28.02.2018 at 10:30 am in place of 23.02.2018 at about 11:00 am and in the limitation paragraph as 28.02.2018 in place of 23.02.2018 and prayed to permit them to amend the plaint accordingly.

4. The respondents filed counter affidavit opposing the petitioner and mainly contended that the present petition was filed only in view of I.A.No.1500 of 2018 filed by the respondents under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint. It is further contended that the proposed amendment seeking to delete and insert the file number, date, time and date of limitation cannot be said to be typographical errors and cannot be entertained as it shows lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioners and the petitioners are trying to introduce new facts by way of proposed amendment which is not permissible and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Basing on the same, the trial Court permitted to amend only G.O.Ms. number as “G.O.Ms.No.G/747/2612/2008” in place of “G.O.Ms.No.G1/747/2612/2008” and whereas dismissed for the amendment for cause of action with regard to the date, time and the date of limitation.

6. Heard Sri D. V. Sitarama Murthy, learned Senior Coursel representing Sri Kondaparthy Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Shireen Sethna baria, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that along with the plaint, they filed complaint given to the police about the said dispossession dated 28.02.2018. Further, the typographical mistake occurred in the plaint with regard to date was not changed i.e., the date was mentioned as ‘23’ instead of ‘28’. Further submitted that it will not change the cause of action and no prejudice will be caused to the defendant. Therefore, prayed the Court to allow the petition.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the date of cause of action is crucial and the same cannot be amended as it relates to limitation also. He further relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case between “J. Samuel and others vs. Gattu Mahesh and ors, [2012 (2) SCC 300]”

9. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and the material available on record, petitioner seeks to amend the date of cause of action as ‘28’ instead of ‘23’ stating that it is typographical mistake. In support of the same, he has also filed list of documents along with the plaint, wherein, the document No.20 is the compl